Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds meaningful context: no wallet, provider execution, payment or signup is required, and it describes what is returned (input-contract links, free preview links, current merchant-authorized payment eligibility). This goes beyond the safety profile annotations. The one gap is that return format details are still somewhat abstract without an output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds returns and the sibling alternative, with no obvious filler. A few clauses (e.g., 'current merchant-authorized payment eligibility') are dense but still earn their place by preventing misuse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter discovery tool with rich annotations but no output schema, the description covers what it returns, what it excludes, and the alternative route. The only missing piece is clarity on the limit parameter's effect, which is minor given the tool's low complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 50%: the query parameter has a useful description in the schema, but the limit parameter has bounds and a default with no description anywhere. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning or guidance (e.g., how to phrase a query, what limit controls), so it fails to compensate for the undocumented limit.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (find/discover) and resource (KEVAREMESH's first-party API tools) with clear scope (free, read-only, deterministic tasks). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling by naming kevaremesh_use for paid external APIs, so an agent can select it without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says when to use this tool (structured data, JSON, CSV, Base64, URLs, timestamps, encoding) and when to use the alternative (paid external web/search/finance APIs via kevaremesh_use). It also warns against inferring paid availability from an indicative price, leaving no routing ambiguity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.